Prognostic factors for visual recovery in idiopathic rhegmatogenous retinal detachment: a prospective study of 90 patients.

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.main##

Hsouna Zgolli
Sonya Mabrouk
Oumayma Khayrallah
Olfa Fekih
Imene Zeghal
Leila Nacef

Abstract

Aim:
To determine the preoperative clinical and tomographic factors involved in the postoperative visual prognosis of macula-off rhegmatogenous retinal detachment.
Methods:
We conducted a prospective analytical study of 90 eyes of 90 patients who suffered from macula-off rhegmatogenous retinal detachment and were treated in department “A” of “Hedi Raies Institute of Ophthalmology”, Tunis. All the patients were examined prior and after the operation, with a thorough interrogation and complete ophthalmological examination. Also, we continued assessing their status for 6 months. We looked for the clinical factors predictive of postoperative visual recovery. The data collected was stored using Excel software and analyzed using SPSS version 18 for Windows (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY). For all statistical tests, the significance level was set at p=0.05.
Results:
The mean preoperative visual acuity (VA) was 1.73 +/- 0.34 LogMAR. It was significantly correlated with management delay (p<0.001). Postoperative VA was 0.61 +/- 0.43 LogMAR. The various pre-operative clinical risk factors for poor final visual recovery (VA<5/10) were: preoperative VA ≥ 2 LogMAR, management delay > 15 days (p<0.01), proliferative vitreoretinopathy (PVR) stage C or greater (p=0.01), and number of detached retinal quadrants > 2 (p=0.05). Furthermore, we have found that the preoperative tomographic risk factors for poor visual recovery were: height of sub retinal fluid > 760µm (p < 0.001), disruption of the external limiting membrane and/or ellipsoid zone (p < 0.001), presence of cavitations in the external and/or internal nuclear layer (p = 0.002), and finally the absence of a thickening of the photoreceptor outer segments (p = 0.001).
Conclusion:
Predictive preoperative clinical factors in macula off RRD are mainly preoperative visual acuity, the management delay, number of quadrants reached and PVR stage. Mastering these factors builds a better understanding of the functional recovery after macula-off retinal detachment and helps advise the patients who will consequently be more involved in the management of this serious disease. Spectral domain OCT allows detection of specific microscopic macular changes. These anomalies could be predictive of final postoperative visual outcome.

Keywords:

rhegmatogenous retinal detachment, prognosis, preoperative factors, tomography.

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.details##

References

  1. 1- Malosse L, Rousseau H, Baumann C and al. Prevalence and risk factors for outer retinal layer damage after macula off retinal detachment. Br J Ophthalmol 2020;104:660-665. 2- Parkdh, Choiks, Sunhj, Leesj. Factors associated with visual outcome after macula-off rhegmatogenous retinal detachment surgery. Retina 2018;38:137-147. 3- Adelman RA, Parnes AJ, Ducournau D. Vitreo-Retinal European Society Retinal Detachment Study Group. Strategy for the management of uncomplicated retinal detachments: the European vitreo-retinal society retinal detachment study report. Ophthalmology 2013;120:1804-1808. 4- Cleary PE, Leaver PK. Macular abnormalities in the reattached retina. Br J Ophthalmol. 1978;62:595-603. 5- Abouzeid H, Wolfensberger TJ. Macular recovery after retinal detachment. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2006;84:597-605. 6- Doyle E, Herbert EN. How effective is macula-off retinal detachment surgery. Might good outcome be predicted. Eye. 2007;21:534-40. 7- Hassan TS, Sarrafizadeh R, Ruby AJ, Garretson BR, Kuczynski B, Williams GA.The effect of duration of macular detachment on results after the scleral buckle repair of primary, macula-off retinal detachments. Ophthalmology. 2002 Jan;109(1):146-52. 8- Ross WH.Visual recovery after macula-off retinal detachment. Eye (Lond). 2002 Jul;16(4):440-6. 9- Abouzeid H, Wolfensberger TJ. Macular recovery after retinal detachment. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2006 Oct;84(5):597-605. 10- Sultan ZN, Agorogiannis EI, Iannetta D, Steel D, Sandinha T. Rhegmatogenous retinal detachment: a review of current practice in diagnosis and management. BMJ Open Ophthalmol. 2020 Oct 9;5(1):e000474. 11- Lee IT, Lampen SIR, Wong TP, Major JC Jr, Wykoff CC. Fovea-sparing rhegmatogenous retinal detachments: impact of clinical factors including time to surgery on visual and anatomic outcomes.Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2019 May;257(5):883-889 12- Wilkinson CP. Mysteries regarding the surgically reattached retina. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc 2009;107:55-7. 13- Feltgen N, Heimann H, Hoerauf H, Walter P, Hilgers RD, Heussen N. Scleral buckling versus primary vitrectomy in rhegmatogenous retinal detachment study: Risk assessment of anatomical outcome. Acta Ophthalmologica 2013;91(3):282-7. 14- Banaee T, Hosseini SM, Ghooshkhanei H, Moosavi M, Khayyatzadeh-Kakhki S. Anatomical and visual outcomes of three different scleral buckling techniques. J Ophthalmic Vis Res 2009;4(2):90-6. 15- Afrashi F, Akkin C, Egrilmez S. Anatomic outcome of scleral buckling surgery in primary rhegmatogenous retinal detachment. Int Ophthalmol 2005;26:77-81. 16- Heimann H, Zou X, Jandeck C and al. Primary vitrectomy for rhegmatogenous retinal detachment: an analysis of 512 cases. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2006;244:69-78. 17- Joe SG, Kim YJ, Chae JB, Yang SJ, Lee JY, Kim JG, et al. Structural recovery of the detached macula after retinal detachment repair as assessed by optical coherence tomography. Korean J Ophthalmol 2013;27:178-85.